The design and aesthetics of wearable activity trackers Matthew George Pateman Project report submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Human-Computer Interaction with Ergonomics) in the Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 2015. Note by the university This project report is submitted as an examination paper. No responsibility can be held by London University for the accuracy or completeness of the material therein.
93
Embed
The design and aesthetics of wearable activity trackers · The design and aesthetics of wearable activity trackers ... taking part in the trial preparations for this study, and I
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The design and
aesthetics of wearable
activity trackers
Matthew George Pateman
Project report submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science (Human-Computer Interaction with Ergonomics) in the
Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 2015.
Note by the university
This project report is submitted as an examination paper. No responsibility can
be held by London University for the accuracy or completeness of the material
therein.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisors, Daniel Harrison and Dr Paul Marshall
for their critical advice and supervision throughout the duration of this
dissertation. I would also like to thank the tutors and staff of the MSc HCI-E
course who have been consistently inspiring and supportive — as have many of
my colleagues on the course.
Hollie, Emily and Andrey were very generous with their time and energy by
taking part in the trial preparations for this study, and I am grateful for their
enthusiasm in becoming Quantified Selfers for a week.
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to Nicholas for his continuous
encouragement, unwavering support, limitless patience and delicious cups of
coffee.
London, 2015
2
ABSTRACT
Aesthetics in the context of human-computer interaction has been an area of
much research. However this research has focused primarily on usability. In
recent years wearable products have seen an increase in user adoption. Currently
the form factors of fitness trackers on the market are limited and have distinct
aesthetics and physical forms. This research investigates the relationship between
activity tracker and wearer, and the resulting aesthetic experience. The author
applies novel approaches as methods of research: (1) an investigatory diary study
followed by a participatory design workshop which aims to understand the user’s
challenges with current devices; (2) designing and prototyping, through which
the participants’ ideas are evaluated and their designs subsequently realised as
non-functional low-fidelity prototypes; and (3) in-situ evaluation of prototypes
during which the prototypes are given to participants to use within their normal
routine. During this final stage they are asked to document their reflections in
form of an evaluatory diary. The study concludes with closing interviews. The
author presents themes which designers of future wearable products should be
conscious of during the design process: sensory qualities of the device, perceived
properties of the device, the context of use, and other influencing factors.
Word count: 17,013
3
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
Abstract 3
Introduction 7
Background and related research 10
2.1 Personal Informatics 10
2.2 Behavioural change 12
2.2.1 Collecting data as a means for reflection 12
2.2.2 Displaying health information for behavioural change purposes
14
2.3 Aesthetics 15
2.3.1 Aesthetics and usability 16
2.3.2 Aesthetic as part of user-centred design 16
2.3.3 Aesthetics, materials and associations 17
2.3.4 Buying into brands and lifestyles 18
2.4 From Smartphones to wearables 19
2.5 Barriers to use and abandonment 20
Methodology 22
3.1 Selection of methods 23
3.2 Collecting user insights on current devices 24
3.3 Designing and prototyping 24
3.4 Collecting insights using prototypes 25
3.5 Qualitative Data Analysis 25
3.6 Participants of the study 26
Diary Study and Participatory Design Workshops 29
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 Methods 30
4
4.2.1 Diary Study 30
4.2.2 Participatory Design workshops 31
Workshop Exercise 1: Projective Expression 35
Workshop Exercise 2: Mapping of domain knowledge 38
Workshop Exercise 3: Creative thinking through bisociation 39
Workshop Exercise 4: Designing your own prototype 40
4.3 Analysis 42
4.4 Findings 42
4.4.1 Motivation 43
Data as motivation 43
Financial incentives as motivation 44
Social engagement and competition as motivation 44
Improving one's health and performance as motivation 45
4.4.2 Non-use cases 45
4.4.3 Participants technological desires 46
4.4.4 Participants’ aesthetic desires 47
4.4.5 Participants’ models 48
4.5 Discussion 51
Designing and Prototyping 52
5.1 Introduction 52
5.2 Methods 53
5.3 Discussion 59
Collecting insights using prototypes 60
6.1 Introduction 60
6.2 Methods 60
6.2.1 In-situ design evaluation 60
6.2.2 Interviews 61
5
6.3 Findings 62
6.3.1 Motivations 63
6.3.2 Sensory qualities of the device 63
6.3.3 Context of use 65
6.3.3 Customisability and fashion 66
6.3.4 Perceived properties of the device 67
6.3.5 Other influencing factors 68
6.4 Discussion 69
Discussion 71
7.1 Discussion of results 71
7.1.1 Motivations 71
7.1.2 Key themes 71
Sensory qualities of the device 72
The context of use 72
Perceived properties of the device 73
Other influencing factors 73
7.2 The methodological approach 73
7.2.1 Workshop exercises and participant engagement 74
7.2.2 Prototype fidelity and ambiguity 75
7.2.3 Participant’s investment of time 76
7.2.4 Prototype durability and comfort 76
7.3 Limitations of the study 77
Conclusion 78
References 79
Appendix 1 89
6
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Wearable health devices have seen a rapid increase in development, with
many companies offering devices with built-in sensors that provide insights for
users performing physical activity. The collection of personal data about oneself is
becoming increasingly popular. As technology has developed, the field of personal
informatics has emerged, with many tools which allow users to collect and display
information about their activity, and currently focuses on data such as step
counts, heart rate and weight [59]. Self-tracking is becoming increasingly easier
with the growing capabilities of mobile devices. Connected devices allow for data
about users to be constantly captured and, through web-services, to be analysed
and presented. Contextual information through other sensors such as GPS, or
access to personal calendars, has started giving users better insights and
awareness of their physical activity. This has lead to lifelogging functionality
being added to a number of commercially available products [94]. Tracking is
becoming embodied into everyday lives, making these what Rooksby et al.
describe as lived informatics; a ‘felt-life’ experience [65,73]. However, while
technology and tracking capabilities have seen rapid development (with
components becoming smaller and a variety of new sensors being integrated into
wearable activity monitors), the form and aesthetics of these products are
predominantly confined to wrist-worn devices.
Aesthetics, and people’s understanding or concept of taste is becoming
increasingly relevant in HCI, with researchers exploring ways to design for an
aesthetic experience [8,87]. Boehner et al. conclude that research should explore
the subjective and personal experiences which users have. Experience in itself is
also a “very dynamic, complex and subjective phenomenon.” [10:424] It is
determined by the sensory qualities of a design and its interpretation, taking
contextual factors into account. McCarthy and Wright’s ‘Technology as
Experience’ framework looks at the sensual aspects of an experience including the
visceral characteristics of an interaction [64]. Norman’s model ‘cognitive
processing’ describes the visceral level as one which makes “rapid judgement
between what is good or bad, safe 0r dangerous” [69:22], and – taking aesthetics
into account – what is aesthetically appealing or unappealing, tasteful or
distasteful.
7
The author wishes to better understand the relationship between the wearer
of an activity tracker and the device, the context of its use, and in particular the
aesthetic experience. Little is known about the impact of physical design and
aesthetics on the use of wearable trackers. Aesthetics can affect engagement with
a product, its use and possibly also influence its abandonment.
Do the product aesthetics and physical design of these wearable trackers allow
for the intended use by the user and encourage a healthier lifestyle or an increase
in activity levels? Have they been designed to consider the practical constraints of
users’ lifestyles [21]? These are questions which the author wishes to explore in
his research.
It is known that well-designed interfaces which follow a set of heuristics are
more usable, with one heuristic highlighting the aesthetics and design of the
interface [68]. Research into activity trackers additionally highlights aesthetics as
one cause for abandonment [37]. Findings show that many users of commercial
activity trackers have found workarounds to integrate their devices better into
their lifestyle and routine. This research wishes to expand on previous research in
order to further understand wearers, including those using workarounds, by
allowing them to design their own custom device as part of a participatory design
workshop.
Aesthetic experience is a subjective construct between artefact and viewer
[87] and imposes a number of limitations on the methods that can be employed.
The author discusses how he addresses this problem by utilising a novel approach
to answer these research questions: the use of diary study, autoethnography and
participatory design workshops, prototyping, in-situ evaluation and interviews.
This approach to understanding the implications of device aesthetics and context
is based upon the Context Mapping framework [85],[85] Experience Prototyping
framework [10] and the simple design lifecycle [80]. It additionally seeks to
challenge the archetype of activity trackers – wrist-worn devices – and to
encourage participants of the study to design a device of their own. Participants’
concepts are then realised by creating low-fidelity prototypes which are handed
back for evaluation. Participants evaluated their prototypes in-situ and document
their use and reflections in form of a diary study. The research concluded with a
semi-structured interview. These methods allow the author to understand the
8
challenges participants face with their current devices and the needs they express
through their workshop models.
The author's research aimed to understand the effects of aesthetics on
products’ use-cases and how the task of tracking one's physical activity is
influenced by a device’s physical properties, the device’s form-factor and its
resulting interactions. Devices for tracking both everyday activity and workout
activities were considered in the study, however, depending on the tracking
objectives, use and non-use cases are expected to vary.
This research demonstrates that the aesthetic experience of wearable
products is highly subjective and varies depending on the wearer and the context
in which it is worn. It provides a set of themes which designers of future wearable
products should consider when designing with an aesthetic experience in mind:
the sensory qualities of the device, the context of use, perceived properties and
other influencing factors.
However, aside from the findings, the main contribution of this study is the
evaluation of the unique approach taken to understand aesthetics in the context
of wearable activity trackers. When dealing with highly subjective domains such
as aesthetics, non-traditional approaches are required. This research explores
participatory design, prototyping and in-situ evaluation. This research reports on
the use of these methods and offers recommendations for HCI researchers and
practitioners wishing to use these approaches in the future.
9
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND AND RELATED RESEARCH
2.1 Personal Informatics
Personal informatics (PI) is a term covering the collection of personally
relevant information about users, and its subsequent analysis and presentation
for the means of reflection. Health trackers are one of the most common personal
informatics tools. There are many use-cases for wearable trackers, the main one
being the ability to receive real-time information on one’s physical activity.
Previous work looks at self-tracking, in particular the concept of the ‘quantified
self’, as a means of motivation [19,73]. As Choe et al. state, the group of
‘Quantified Selfers’ consists of many diverse people (including life hackers,
computer scientists and health enthusiasts) who track many aspects of their lives
in order to collect and explore data about themselves, either for preventative
purposes or out of general interest. While this community is highly engaged in
self-tracking, with many sites and meetups dedicated to sharing best practices,
they also experience common pitfalls such as tracking too much data (which can
cause tracking fatigue), or not tracking enough (which results in them not gaining
appropriate insight and context to reflect upon).
While Quantified Selfers may represent an extreme case of living with
personal data, many other people have different motivations for tracking such
data. These motivations may relate to physical or mental health or to changes in
living or working circumstances.
Wearable health devices have seen a rapid increase in development, with
many companies offering devices with built-in sensors that provide insights for
users performing physical activity. These devices are not only aimed at people
tracking runs, gym workouts or intended physical activity, they also allow users to
track their everyday non-exercise-related activity, or non-exercise activity
thermogenesis (NEAT), as described by Levine [58]. With 26% of male adults,
24% of female adults and 19% of children (aged 2 - 15) in the UK being classified
as obese it is important to discourage a sedentary lifestyle and encourage better
nutrition and physical activity [61], and devices such as activity trackers aim to
help users improve their health.
10
There are two forms of activity trackers: those intended for tracking workouts
through specialised sensors (such as GPS for running or cycling) and those
focused on NEAT activity with accelerometers and gyroscopes. Many products
now blur the lines between both types of tracking with a wide range of
health-related products which encourage physical activity. These range from apps
and fitness programmes to health monitors and wearables which are available to
a broad variety of consumers, including non-professional athletes and people
curious about their activity levels.
When it comes to the tracking of physical activity, improving one’s health and
personal performance are two most common motivations. Currently available
commercial devices give users data about their performance in certain sports
including running [95], golf [96] and even tennis [97]. Other apps and devices are
also positioned as ‘digital personal trainers’ giving users tips on how to exercise
more efficiently and effectively [89,93]. Aside from physical health, smartphone
apps are additionally focusing on mental well-being, nutritional advice, sleep
tracking, and financial and reproductive health, and are incorporating lifelogging
features.
Traditionally, the term lifelogging refers to the logging of aspects of one’s
daily life via a portable camera like SenseCam, a neck-worn passive image capture
device that takes shots throughout the day which the wearer can review at a later
date [25]. Lifelogging has expanded beyond photos to include the capture of more
aspects of the user’s daily life, and now incorporates smartphone use, messaging,
health information and location. An early research project into capturing this
extent of data was centred around MyLifeBits [33], a system designed to help
organise one researcher’s capturing of personal data which ranged from photos
and emails to health and computer usage data. SenseCam made use of MyLifeBits
to manage the vast amount of data it was creating. Commercial services such as
Heyday [90] utilise a user’s photos and geo-location data to create a log of the
user’s whereabouts throughout the day. Sony allows users to track their health
data, entertainment app usage and communication information via an app called
Lifelog [94]. Other services have focused on physical activity together with user
location as another form of logging, this is seen in apps like Moves [98]. The data
gathered from physical activity provides not only insights into fitness levels, but
11
also insights into other aspects such as levels of drunkenness, fever or smoking
cessation [48].
Since the work by Hodges et al. on SenseCam [39,40], products such as
Narrative’s Clip [91] have been developed, and more research based on SenseCam
has been done which has taken aesthetics and design further into account [35].
While logging for personal use has seen significant development, so has tracking
for marketing and commercial purposes. Other forms of logging make use of
‘checking-in’ to locations either via a mobile phone application [99] or with RFID
chips. Disney recently launched its MagicBand, a wrist-worn wearable product
which allows visitors to their parks to check into rides, hotel rooms, and to pay in
shops and restaurants. Whilst its focus is mainly commercial, the aesthetics of the
device were considered in order to encourage visitors to wear them, these have
been developed to the extent that they have become collectors items with limited
edition designs [51,100]. Similarly, Barclay’s recently launched its bPay products
in the UK which includes a wearable NFC payments wristband [101]. This
research into the aesthetics of wearable tracking devices can be applied in other
fields of wearable products such as NFC wristbands. Due to the current
popularity of activity tracking devices, they present an interesting case study on
how their aesthetics and physical form affect their use. However, other, or even
future, wearable products may face similar constraints.
2.2 Behavioural change
There are numerous research studies focusing on tracking physical activity.
Researchers have looked at all of the ways users can track their activity the use of
mobile phones [49] and have concluded that tracking with mobile phones and
wearable activity trackers can be very accurate [15,83]. While sensors and
tracking capabilities of devices are constantly improving, researchers are looking
into the effects of personal informatics on behavioural change.
2.2.1 Collecting data as a means for reflection
Many people collect data to later reflect upon. SenseCam has been used by
researchers who have found that the photos taken by the device acted both as
reference points to ground conversations and as triggers to conversation topics
when used in a collaborative work environment [40].
12
Reflection as a design goal can be seen in many products [26]. With the
increase in collection of personal data (personal informatics), many products
have been specifically designed to allow for users to review their data in order to
reflect upon it. Baumer coined the term ‘Reflective Informatics’ to describe the
main purpose of the data which users collect [5]. Whilst this is not a new category
of informatics, it aims to provide a conceptual approach to the discussion of
personal informatics technology which is designed for reflection.
Consolvo et al. highlight the importance of designing a system, such as
Houston (a prototype mobile phone application which synced with a pedometer)
[21], which allowed for social support and positive peer pressure to help users
maintain a physical lifestyle. Houston enabled users to track and share their
activity with friends, which in turn persuaded them to be more active. It was
aimed at encouraging both opportunistic physical activities and structured
exercise. Fish’n’Steps was another prototype which displayed people's activity as
fish in a fishtank on a communal display. It was designed to encourage exercise
amongst groups [62]. While nobody knew which fish represented their
coworkers’ activity, they were able to compare their activity with that of others.
This generated competition amongst co-workers to be physically active and, more
importantly, encouraged users to increase their activity if they noticed that they
were underperforming.
More recently, Fleck and Harrison have argued that the sharing of personal
information supports reflection and behaviour change [27]. By sharing personal
information, users are able to compare themselves with others and reflect on
their own performance as part of a sense-making process [64]. Once the personal
information has been made available to others, users may reflect on it differently
compared to when it is private. However, extending this argument, one may also
consider that reflection happens prior to the act of sharing, as users may think of
the sharing of their personal information as an actionable output when taking the
stage-based model of PI into account [60].
Li’s stage-based model of PI describes the process of behavioural change
through personal informatics, concluding with the final goal of taking action [60].
Selecting devices, such as the previously mentioned commercial products, could
be considered as part of the ‘preparation’ stage, which then leads on to the
13
‘collection’, ‘integration’, ‘reflection’ and ‘action’ stages. At each stage there are
barriers which can cascade to later stages if not addressed. As Li. et al. conclude,
people’s lives are multi-faceted, however the tools used to track data are
uni-faceted – apps for single purposes with limited ways to correlate data. This
can limit how people reflect on their data and take action. Health tracking and
financial well-being tools are both uni-faceted. However, with insurance
companies financially rewarding customers who engage with trackers [81], there
may be a need to integrate these tools in order to provide a more holistic picture.
Finding the right amount of interaction is another important aspect for
researchers to consider. The reduction in size and energy consumption of
components has meant that small sensors such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and
heart-rate monitors, low-power processors, and wireless transmitters can be
included in wearable devices. This has allowed for implicit HCI [78] –
interactions becoming hidden from the user – making the device unnoticeable.
With regard to wearable fitness trackers, implicit interactions mean that activity
is constantly tracked through sensors which do not distract users from their
primary task. In contrast, explicit interactions require active user input. Activity
trackers should simplify the engagement with PI so that it becomes unnoticeable
and its functions are straightforward for the user to understand. This use of
implicit HCI results in the only noticeable part of the collection of PI being the
physical form factor of the device and its aesthetics. However, while automation
may make tracking more convenient for users, it may result in them being less
engaged with their PI, which could lead to a reduction in physical activity [59]. In
order for users to change their behaviours, they require feedback. Therefore,
finding the right balance between automation and user engagement is important.
2.2.2 Displaying health information for behavioural change purposes
The display of PI data supports behavioural change. Ubifit Garden, a
prototype consisting of a wearable fitness tracker together with a mobile phone
app which displays the user’s activity levels as a background image, was based on
Houston and focused on providing personal awareness of activity levels [21,22].
Users need to be able to easily see their current activity levels. Activity levels were
displayed in a glanceable format on the user’s mobile phone screen background; a
format which meant that users would notice it every time they glanced at the
display. The results of testing this product found that the activity levels of users
14
without a glanceable display dropped in comparison to those who used the Ubifit
Garden display. This research demonstrates the health benefits which easily
viewable information on activity levels can provide. Wearable trackers with a
glanceable display are more effective than those without and form factor has an
effect on the user activity levels. The display may however be on the device itself,
or even part of another frequently used product, which in the case of Ubifit
Garden was the user’s mobile phone.
The findings in all of this research demonstrates how users are able to
improve their health through the use of PI. In the research studies mentioned
above, users commented on device aesthetics and physical form-factor. Houston,
was very bulky and not always suitable for every occasion [21]. Fish’n’Steps used a
basic pedometer, however it had to be clipped onto the waist which became a
nuisance for participants [62]. Ubifit Garden demonstrated that devices with a
glanceable display are more effective than devices without a screen [22].
Researchers and companies are looking into how to embed technology into
wearable products [7,92], however the placement of personal screens and
tracking devices in context with users’ lifestyle circumstances has been
underexplored. Devices need to fit a user’s lifestyle otherwise they can become
discouraging to use and may be abandoned [21,53]. A device’s form factor should
meet the user’s lifestyle requirements rather than the user having to change their
habits around a product.
2.3 Aesthetics
For many companies, aesthetics is a key part of their brand strategy as it
provides a competitive advantage. As Schmitt and Simonson state in the
introduction to their book “Marketing Aesthetics”, consumers are dazzled by their
sensory experiences – visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and gustatory. These
sensory experiences impact every initial decision consumers make, providing a
pre-reflective judgement of a product or situation. Whilst consumers basic needs
are mostly satisfied, brands can easily provide additional product value to satisfy
consumers experiential needs, their so-called aesthetic needs [79].
So, what exactly are aesthetics? The term aesthetics derives from the Greek
term ‘aisthesis’, the perception from the senses, feeling, hearing, seeing and today
it is commonly used as a term referring to the attractive appearance or sound of
15
something. [102]. Aesthetics, and people’s understanding of ‘what is beautiful’ is
becoming increasingly relevant in HCI with researchers exploring ways to design
for an aesthetic experience [8]. Boehner et al. conclude that research should
explore the subjective and personal experiences users have. This research takes
McCarthy and Wright’s ‘Technology as Experience’ framework looks at the
sensual aspects, which include the visceral characteristics, of an experience [64].
Experience in itself is also “very dynamic, complex and subjective
phenomenon.” [10:424] It is determined by the design’s sensory qualities and its
interpretation, taking contextual factors into account. Norman’s model ‘cognitive
processing’ describes the visceral level as one which makes fast judgement
between what is good or bad, safe 0r dangerous and – taking aesthetics into
account – what is aesthetically appealing or unappealing [69].
2.3.1 Aesthetics and usability
Aesthetics in the context of usability has been the subject of much research.
Much of this research is concerned with the relationship between aesthetics,
usability and ergonomics, and its impact on users’ online behaviour [13,68]. This
raises an interesting question: How does aesthetics impact the use, usability and
effectiveness of wearable products? In his book, Emotional Design, Norman
suggests that aesthetics is directly correlated with usability, and in some cases
may be more usable than those designed purely with functionality in mind [69].
He additionally states that product aesthetics affects the emotional state of users,
which in return can affect users’ interaction with the product and subsequent
usability. It can therefore be considered as one of many components of
user-centred design.
2.3.2 Aesthetic as part of usercentred design
Aesthetics and self-expression are topics designers engage with. As pointed
out by Sonderegger in regards to fashion design, clothes perform one of two
functions: a physical function (protecting from elements) or a social and cultural
function, allowing its wearer to display his or her individual characteristics or
social status [82]. With smart garments and sensors being embedded into fashion
items [92] this is going to broaden use cases of garments significantly with
possibilities ranging from health tracking or novel ways of data input through
embedded sensors. However the latter, the social function, is closely connected to
16
aesthetics. Whilst a piece of clothing may be usable and provide the required
protection against rain or the cold for example, it may not be considered
user-centric if its aesthetics is not considered. This additionally applies to
wearables. Research, in which participants designed their own UV monitoring
device, concluded that participants were receptive towards the notion of crafting
their own devices [2]. The results of this study were promising, however the
number of participants was limited to five users (one female).
Wright, Wallace and McCarthy propose a framework for an aesthetic
experience [87], which explores the interplay between the experience and the
user, the context of use, culture and history. This approach does not simply
analyse the aesthetics and perceived value of a product without any regard for
user, but instead examines the relationship between the product and its wearer. It
looks at the lived experience [65]. In their research on wearable products
McCarthy and Wright propose moving away from terms such as ‘wearable
computing’ and ‘user’ and replace them with ‘jewellery’ and ‘wearer’ to highlight
their constant and intimate relationship. There are examples of research [29,56]
and consumer products [103] in which visual aesthetics play a primary role. As
Jordan describes in ‘Designing Pleasurable Products’, manufacturers may design
products with common aesthetic values and users may have a preferred aesthetic
style [42]. However, Petersen et al. take aesthetic interaction further in
challenging the assumption that aesthetics are primarily concerned with the
immediate visual impression of products [71]. This research wishes to further
challenge that assumption and focus on the aesthetic experience and the
enchantment it may create through the interaction with wearable products.
While vision may be the most important modality, it is not exempt from
influences from other modalities, which can have an effect on its interpretation
[14]. Therefore, these modalities should not be overlooked when designing for an
aesthetic experiences.
2.3.3 Aesthetics, materials and associations
Many modalities can be influenced by the choice of material, which can have
significant impact on a product’s aesthetics and its related associations. While
manufacturing processes and cost are primary reasons for selecting materials,
research has shown that the intangible aspects of materials have become
17
increasingly important in the materials selection process [46]. While sensory
properties such as smell, feel and general impressions have become of
importance, so have the ‘intangible characteristics of materials’ [46:1084]. These
characteristics include associations which the materials evoke, the symbolic
meanings of the materials, and the meanings and associations the materials have
in the final form or shape of the product. This research concludes that sensory
properties and intangible characteristics are addressed before technical
properties. Materials can give a product a personality which spans beyond
aesthetics and covers the whole product experience [4].
2.3.4 Buying into brands and lifestyles
Brands additionally make use of these experience and product associations by
presenting a lifestyle many may aspire to. The Nike digital sports products (Nike+
Running, Nike Training Club and NikeFuel) and Under Armour connected sports
products (Endemodo, MapMyRun and MyFitnessPal) are prime examples of how
brands are attempting to extend their presence from just sportswear to the user’s
phone or digital presence on social media [1]. Brands can enable a form of
self-expression or lifestyle aspiration, which consumers can identify with. Apart
from ideological and sociological pleasures which products from brands can
provide [42], such as a sense of belonging to a community or the feeling of doing
something towards a certain cause, these products can additionally provide
physio or psycho pleasures; pleasures which are based on the sensory experience
of the product – a so-called aesthetic experience. In ‘Sharing Personal Data to
Support Reflection and Behaviour Change’ Fleck and Harrison discuss the
implementation of the sharing features of health tracking apps and devices and
suggest their implementation is to provide users with the ability to reflect on their
data in order for them to feel more motivated [27]. One may argue that the
sharing functionality, in particular on networks such as Facebook or Twitter, is
primarily driven by their marketing efforts in order to connect their site to the
‘social web’ [34] and to drive customer acquisition and brand awareness. The act
of sharing may be part of the emotional experience of the encounter with this
technology. It offers participants a sense-making opportunity to recount their
experience by telling others about it [64]. Brands inserting themselves into the
emotional thread of this experience, the joy of completing a workout or hitting a
milestone, may aim to establish stronger connections with the user and brand
loyalty. In return the user may see this as part of the brand experience, which
18
they have bought into or, if they are not a current user of this product, wish to be
part of.
2.4 From Smartphones to wearables
The forms of tracking has become broader with tracking capabilities being
included in smartphones. Today, the cost of acquiring a tracker requires no
financial investment for smartphone users, as there is an array of free tracking
apps available to download instantly. Over recent years the number activity
trackers sold has significantly grown with companies like Fitbit being valued at 8
Billion U.S. dollars [66]. However, whilst the activity tracking market is expected
to grow, statistics show that the usage of activity trackers drops by a third within
6 months of purchase [20,54].
The categorisation of fitness trackers at times can cause confusion. Fitbit’s
CEO suggests Fitbit tracking devices should be classified as a health product /
service and for comparative purposes of its active user rate should be compared
to gym memberships [52]. But with smartwatches as a growing category, should
fitness trackers be recategorised from a tracker to smartwatch? Do smartwatches
therefore pose an additional cause for abandonment of trackers? With traditional
watch manufacturers considering building their own smartwatches,
health-related tracking may become a feature included with every watch. As per
the definition from Cecchinato, Cox et al. a smartwatch is
“a wrist-worn device with computational power, that can connect to
other devices via short range wireless connectivity; provides alert
notifications; collects personal data through a range of sensors and
stores them; and has an integrated clock”. [16]
According to the definition above, some activity trackers could be considered
smartwatches, and likewise, smartwatches with their built in sensors may also be
considered activity trackers. However, as the research points out: The aesthetic
desirability of owning a smartwatch highly depends on personal preferences and
currently users are unsure what smartwatches should look like. Another area
which is under-explored concerns itself with the effects which the physical
form-factor or aesthetics of a smartwatch have on its usage. Additionally the
product aesthetics of a smartwatch and an activity tracker vary. The selected
19
materials, product designs and its associations differ significantly even when both
devices offer increasingly similar functionality.
While the battle of wrist-worn devices is currently in full swing, other
companies are exploring the next product to make ‘smarter’: smart jewellery.
Many startup companies have developed ring-based products with a variety of
capabilities ranging from notifications to sleep tracking [47]. Research in the HCI
field has briefly touched on jewellery [28,29], wearable products with aesthetics
as an experience [56], and awareness systems for emotional communication [24],
but not in the extent required to evaluate personal informatics systems. This
research would like to make an attempt towards filling that gap.
2.5 Barriers to use and abandonment
In Consolvo et al.’s study with Houston, one design recommendation from
this work is to consider the practical constraints of user’s lifestyles. [21]. This
primarily focuses on form factors of trackers. The biggest cause of complaint was
about the physical attractiveness and size of the product which caused unwanted
attention at times. Additionally, the product caused complications with some
outfits such as a dress. They conclude that tools encouraging physical activity
should not require an additional device, or, if a device is required, its form factor
and aesthetics are vital to its use.
Research into the abandonment of commercially available wearable activity
trackers highlights that some users decided not to wear them as, after a while,
they felt that these products were designed for other users, such as athletes, and
did not resemble products with which they would always want to associate
themselves [20,53]. Could better consideration to the aesthetics address this
challenge? Lee and Nam argue that current activity trackers are worn in a manner
making them visible, however little attention has been given to the
fashion-related qualities of wearable tracking devices such as their aesthetics or
ability to allow for self-expression [56]. While the abandonment rate of users is at
around 35% after more than 12 months [55], the author wishes to focus on the
user’s who are engaged with trackers, in particularly those have found
workarounds to integrate the commercially available devices better into their
lifestyle.
20
Mass customisation has an ever-growing trend with companies like Nike and
Converse allowing users to design their own shoes, Motorola and its ‘Build yours’
feature for Moto X [104] and Apple Watch with 3 watches cases, a selection of
changeable watch faces, downloadable 3rd-party ‘complications’ and large variety
of strap options [3]. Activity trackers additionally allow for customisation with
devices being produced in various colours and accessories being sold specifically
for these devices. From a business perspective it provides the benefits of a
‘tailor-made’ product at the cost of products of mass production [43] and can
result in higher customer satisfaction and a significantly reduced manufacturing
lead-time [84].
For users, customisation means they have various options to integrate the
device better into their lifestyle. However for many, these customisation options
are not sufficient, with 3rd party companies manufacturing additional accessories
such as cases and crafts people selling jewellery-like encasings. In fact, many
discussions on online communities such as ‘Fitbit Fanatics UK’ talk about how to
either customise your device with other accessories or use them in alternative
ways to continue tracking activity. Harrison et al. interviewed users with activity
tracking devices and concluded that many users find workarounds to use their
devices [37]. Many of these workarounds relate to the physical form and
aesthetics of their devices. One may argue that such use-cases point towards a
lack of user-centred design. This research wishes to understand the relationship
between activity tracker and wearer. Understanding users, their workarounds,
context of use and their unmet needs can identify themes and elements which
need to be taken into consideration when designing future wearable products.
21
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
As mentioned in Chapter 2, experience and aesthetics are both highly
subjective constructs. In order to better understand the relationship between the
wearer of a tracking device and the device’s aesthetics and physical properties a
novel combination of methods was developed to gain insight into people’s
situated aesthetic attitudes towards activity trackers: (1) an investigatory diary
study followed by a participatory design workshop which aimed to understand
users’ challenges with current devices; (2) prototyping, through which the
participants’ ideas were evaluated and their designs subsequently realised as
non-functional low-fidelity prototypes that were made by the researcher using a
variety of methods, including 3D printing, sewing, and appropriation of existing
artefacts such as magnetic badges; and (3) in-situ evaluation of prototypes during
which the prototypes were given to participants to use within the context of their
daily routines. This chapter briefly discusses these methods and their rationales,
including the preparation of the research study and the approach to data analysis
used, as shown in Figure 1. Each stage of the research will be presented and
discussed, together with its procedures and findings, in Chapters 4 - 6. The
timelines listed in Table 1 outline the three stages of the research which stretched
over a 7-week period; however participants were only required to commit to a
diary study, a 2-hour participatory design workshop and a 5-day in-situ
evaluation of their prototype which concluded with a 30-minute closing
interview.
Figure 1 Visualisation of the method of research
22
Weeks Research phase Description
Week 1 Collecting user insights with current devices
7day diary study
Weeks 2 and 3 Collecting user insights with current devices
Participatory design workshop (attendance at only 1 workshop required)
Weeks 3 and 4 Designing and Prototyping Researcher prepares and posts prototypes during this time period
Week 5 Collecting insights using prototypes
5day prototype evaluation and diary study
Weeks 6 and 7 Collecting insights using prototypes
20 – 30minute closing interview
Table 1 Duration of the participatory design research
3.1 Selection of methods
Wright, Wallace and McCarthy define aesthetics as an experience that
“emerges in the interplay between user, context, culture and history” [87:2]. It
manifests itself in the relationship between user and artifact, and is therefore
highly subjective. It cannot be measured objectively but, like experience with
technology alone [65], must be lived in order to be fully understood [8,45]. Many
conventional methods were not applicable, and an alternative, non-traditional
approach was required.
The author explored other fields, such as design research and design practice,
and identified participatory design as a method of research [74,85]. Participatory
design engages multiple stakeholders, including users, in the design process. This
makes it an appropriate method for evaluating areas of research which are as
subjective as experience or aesthetics. However, unlike with many product or
industrial design projects, the goal was not to design a new product. Instead, the
aim of the research was to evaluate the aesthetics and physical form of activity
trackers and their impact on HCI. Therefore, the methods were broken down into
23
three stages: Collecting user insights on current devices, designing and
prototyping, and collecting insights using prototypes. These are discussed below.
3.2 Collecting user insights on current devices
The first stage of the research consisted of a diary study (during which
participants were sensitised towards the research topic) and a participatory
design workshop. Based on the Context Mapping Framework [85], participants
required sensitisation towards the domain of research – in this case, the
aesthetics of wearable tracking devices. This took the form of a diary study, which
additionally encouraged users to reflect upon their experience with their current
activity trackers.
The primary method of research for this stage of the study consisted of a
series of participatory design workshops. Participatory design is a method in
which multiple stakeholders including designers, developers, users and business
analysts collaborate on the design of future products, systems and artifacts
[75,105]. When designing for experiences, it is important to include real users of
the product. As Sanders and Rim state, experiencing is constructive. Having
access to those experiencing and those communicating or designing the
experience can be a source of inspiration [76]. Participatory design workshops are
a common research method used in product and industrial design, and they are
increasingly being applied in the field of HCI research [2,41].
In the design workshops, users took part in various activities which enabled
them to talk about their experiences with current activity trackers, their
motivations for tracking and the frustrations they experience. Participants made a
model of their own ideal tracker, based on their reflections during the workshop
and diary study, and presented their design concepts to the group. These designs
were translated into prototypes in the second stage of the research.
3.3 Designing and prototyping
The second stage of the research consisted of analysis of the outputs of the
first stage and the creation of low-fidelity prototypes by the researcher. These low
fidelity prototypes were based on the models created by the participants in the
workshop and were made using digital fabrication techniques (3D-printing and
laser cutting) in addition to sewing and reappropriating existing materials. The
24
researcher analysed the participants’ diary studies and comments made in the
workshops in order to develop their ideas further towards making a product
which addressed their wants and desires for an ideal tracker. Details of this part
of the research will be discussed in Chapter 5. These low-fidelity prototypes were
handed to the participant for the final stage of the research: an in-situ evaluation
of the prototypes which concluded with a final interview.
3.4 Collecting insights using prototypes
The final stage of the research consisted of an in-situ evaluation of the
prototype and a closing interview. This method is similar to Experience
Prototyping [10], a method aimed at quickly prototyping and evaluating
experiences. However, unlike that method, which focuses on evaluating
experiences within the setting of a workshop, this evaluation took place within the
context of users’ everyday lives. It is comparable to Jeff Hawkin’s evaluation of
the first Palm Pilot prototype, a block of wood that he evaluated through pretend
use [6,44]. Participants were given their custom-designed device as a
non-functional model and were asked to interact with it as if it were functional.
This provided participants with another opportunity for reflection. Their final
comments were gathered in a diary study and a closing interview.
3.5 Qualitative Data Analysis
The dataset from the three parts of the research were then thematically
analysed [9]. Thematic analysis is a qualitative research method which can help
identify and report on themes, patterns and key insights within the collected set
of data. It allows for high flexibility which can result in rich descriptions of the
collected data. It is widely used across various disciplines including psychology
and HCI. This method can enhance the researcher’s view of the data from which
patterns of interest for the research can be identified.
An alternative method of qualitative data analysis is Grounded Theory.
Researchers using Grounded Theory evaluate how their initial research interests
fit with their data [18]. Charmaz emphasises that ideas and theories are not
forced upon the collected data, rather they are analysed for emerging themes
which relate to the research question. However, unlike Grounded Theory where
the researcher attempts to validate a research hypothesis through a qualitative
analysis of the data, a thematic analysis allows for researchers without an
25
hypothesis to search for themes. As highlighted by Mancini et al., surveys and
standard interviews may gather large amounts of data but provide little insight
into the actual thoughts and feelings of users in relation to the area of research, in
this case aesthetics [63]. It is therefore important that a rich set of data is
collected during the research phase. For this, workshops and semi-structured
interviews present themselves as ideal methods.
3.6 Participants of the study
The participants were recruited using social media sites (including Twitter,
Facebook and LinkedIn), posters placed around UCL and through word of mouth.
Paid advertising on social media was not used as recommended by Cecchinato
[17]. Instead, it was important to identify where participants, who were engaged
in a certain topic, were located online; in the case of this research, on Facebook,
Meetup groups about wearables and sites dedicated to the ‘Quantified Self’.
Facebook Groups offered a distinct advantage in recruiting engaged users as
some groups were UK- and even London-based. The identified groups included
‘Fitbit Fanatics UK’, ‘NikeTown Runners’ and ‘East London Runners’.
Participants were incentivised with a £5 voucher and the opportunity to win a
£60 voucher, or one of two £20 vouchers as part of a design competition when
completing the study. For the design competition, the created models from the
workshop were evaluated by a panel of researchers, looking at the process from
the initial concept to the evaluation.
Participants were only recruited if they were current users of activity tracking
devices or applications. This ensured that they were already accustomed to the
field of personal informatics and would be able to complete the first stage of the
research.
Fifteen participants took part in the study (6 male, 9 female). Seven of the
participants were students. Most of the participants were professionals working
in office environments with the majority based in London (as shown in Table 2).
At the time of the study, many users owned or used a single device or app. Some
had owned other devices in the past which they had replaced for a variety of
reasons. These are mentioned later in the findings. However, a few users owned
more than one device or app to track a variety of activities at the time of the
study.
26
ID Gender Age Occupation Devices or Apps
1 Female 18 25 Student Apple Watch, Nike+ Running
9 Male 36 45 Local Government Officer Garmin Fenix 3, Moves App, jawbone Up24
10 Female 18 25 Student Google Fit
11 Female 56 65 Ass. Headteacher Fitbit Flex
12 Male 26 35 Student Fitbit Zip, Google Fit, Google Tracks
13 Male 46 55 Mobile Service Engineer Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Withings Pulse
14 Male 26 35 IT Architect Fitbit One
15 Female 36 45 Business Improvement Officer Fitbit Flex
Table 2 Participant demographics and tracking devices
In preparation for this research, the methods were tested on a group of
friends, all of whom became wearers of activity tracking devices during the initial
diary study. While their results were not included in the final findings of the
study, they helped the researcher plan the workshop agenda.
Additionally, the author wishes to highlight that as part of the preparation of
the study an autoethnography was performed. An autoethnography, as described
by Duncan, allows for the researcher to become an insider in a research setting,
giving him or her a better understanding of an experience [23]. However, in this
instance it was primarily used as a tool to gain empathy towards participants of
the study, similar to previous work [70]. As suggested by Wright and McCarthy,
empathy can also be used as a resource when evaluating user experience-centred
27
designs [86]. Unlike other forms of research, the experiences in an
autoethnography have purposely been selected to be ‘lived through’. For the sake
of this study, the researcher spent two weeks exploring an array of activity
tracking devices including the Microsoft Band, Misfit Shine and Garmin Vivofit 1,
in addition to his previously owned Nike Fuelband SE. The insights gained during
this phase allowed the researcher to better understand his knowledge of this field.
Daily notes and artefacts, including photos, voice recordings and transcriptions of
conversations, were collected. While the data was not used as part of the study,
the process helped the researcher build empathy towards users who have been
tracking their activity both long- and short-term. Research areas such as
aesthetics and experience can benefit from this approach as they allow for the
researcher or designer to better understand participants of a study.
The following chapters present each stage of the research in more detail.
28
CHAPTER 4. DIARY STUDY AND PARTICIPATORY DESIGN WORKSHOPS
4.1 Introduction
The objective of this stage of the study was to gain user insights on current
devices in order to understand the needs and desires which they currently do not
fulfil. Sanders et al. argue that the act of making allows for participants to express
their latent or tacit knowledge; needs which researchers cannot discover either
through observation or interviewing [76] (as shown in Figure 2). This suggests
that while techniques such as interviews and observations can understand what
people think and actually do, generative sessions can allow users to explore those
needs and desires which exist, which they are not consciously aware of or unable
to express with words. This stage of the research therefore made use of a diary
study and participatory design workshops.
Figure 2 Different levels of knowledge about experience are accessed by
different techniques. Source: [85]
This stage of the research had similarities to the Context Mapping Framework
(Figure 3), however with many changes which are discussed below.
29
Figure 3 Context mapping procedure
4.2 Methods
4.2.1 Diary Study
The initial diary study had two objectives: it allowed the researcher to gain
insight into the participants’ current use of activity trackers and, as its primary
objective, sensitised participants to the study. As described by Visser et al. the
sensitising process is intended to motivate and encourage participants to reflect
on their environment and personal context [85], and is to be performed prior to
the workshop session as shown in Figure 3. In order to encourage reflection of
their experience with a currently used product, in particular their aesthetic
experience [8], participants were asked a series of questions every day in the form
of a diary study. Diary study and experience sampling methods (ESM) [38] were
both considered for this research. Various tools were explored as shown in Table
3, however, in order to simplify this part of the process, a diary study (in which
questions were sent to participants via email on a daily basis) was chosen as the
preferred method.
30
Method Tool Requires setup Comments
ESM Wunderlist Yes
Wunderlist allowed for notifications to be sent and lists to be managed by experimenter. Additionally attachments can be added straight from the participant’s phone.
ESM PACO Yes
Whilst designed specifically for ESM the user interface was confusing and some of the functionality and triggers did not function with iOS8 devices
Diary
Study Evernote Yes
Evernote is a great tool and was additionally used in the trial run. However the setup of shared notebooks caused challenges with their current version.
ESM Google+ Sometimes Many people may already be using Google services and have an account
Diary
Study OneNote Yes
OneNote’s setup during the trial was tedious as the sharing functionality is not straightforward. Additionally, the Notebooks shared on OneNote are not mobile optimized requiring those users to pinch and zoom
Diary
Study Email No
Using email allows for no additional setup as participants registering are required to have an email address. Questions can be altered throughout the study as they are disclosed on the day
Table 3 Participant demographics and tracking devices
The diary study questions were geared towards the participants’ daily use of
their activity tracking device(s). It was important to identify use and non-use
cases [77], including challenges and barriers which participants faced. In addition
to questions which were repeatedly asked every day, a selection of questions were
added, these aimed to encourage the participants to reflect on various properties
such as comfort, shape and materials.
4.2.2 Participatory Design workshops
The primary method of data collection for this stage of research was a series
of participatory workshops. Unlike many participatory design workshops which
usually include a broad variety of stakeholders, all participants in this study were
31
current users of activity tracking devices or apps, and were not involved in the
development of activity tracking products in any way. Visser et al. mention in
their paper on the Context Mapping Framework, that participants who currently
use a product may not necessarily be users of a future version of the product and
therefore a diverse group of participants is required [85]. However, in order to
better understand the current use- and non-use cases of activity trackers,
participants taking part in this study were required to have prior engagement
with the area of research: activity tracking. Additionally, Wright and McCarthy
highlight that good aesthetic interaction requires an understanding of users’
sense-making of a design, particularly their interactions at an emotional, sensual
and intellectual level [87]. Therefore to evaluate the aesthetic experience, it was
important to have users who had ‘lived through’ these experiences as part of the
participatory design research trial.
Using both the Context Mapping Framework [85] and a framework on tools
for participatory design [74], a variety of techniques were selected in order to
probe, and prime participants for the workshop and to generate design
recommendations for future products (Table 4) [74,85]. Unlike Context Mapping
where, after the participatory design workshops, the data is usually analysed in
order to produce design requirements (as shown in Figure 1), this research
included prototyping and evaluating as part of the process. This is discussed in
Chapters 5 and 6.
32
Technique Purpose
Probe Prime Understand Generate
Diary Study X X X
Workshop
Workshop Exercise 1
Projective expression
X X X X
Workshop Exercise 2
Mapping of domain
knowledge
X X X
Workshop Exercise 3
Creative thinking through
bisociation
X X
Workshop Exercise 4
Designing your own
prototype
X X
Table 4 Study Outline
The exercises in the workshop were designed to encourage participants to
reflect on their use of current devices, explore the needs they do not solve and to
address them in a creative way within the workshop, and are outlined in the
agenda below in Table 5. Break times were also scheduled. Visser et al. highlight
the importance of recording and documenting break times and of scheduling time
after the workshops for casual conversation. It is in these periods that discussions
around the domain area can occur as participants might feel more open to share
This appendix consists of the participants consent form and information
sheet.
89
Aesthetics and physical design of wearable activity trackers This study has been approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee as Project ID Number: UCLIC/1314/007
Contact Details Investigator’s Name: Matthew Pateman Address: University College London - Interaction Centre
We would like to invite you to participate in this research project. You should only participate if you want to; choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. Before you decide whether you want to take part, please read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.
Details of Study The purpose of this study is to investigate how the physical design and aesthetics of activity tracking devices affect the use of the product. You will be asked to take part in three parts of the study followed by a short Skype interview. The most creative design will win a £60 Amazon Voucher. The 2nd and 3rd most creative designs will each win a £20 gift voucher. All participants will receive £5x. Terms & Conditions apply*.
Timelines The study consists of 4 parts and will take place between 11 and 31 July 2015 11 - 17 July 2015 5-day diary study (5-10 mins / day max.) 18 / 21 July 2015 2-hour Workshop. You can choose from one of the 2 dates.
Saturday, 18 July 2015 from 2pm - 4pm Tuesday, 21 July 2015 from 6.30pm - 8.30pm
20 - 31 July 2015 5-day diary Study (5 - 10 mins / day max.) 27 - 31 July 2015 15-minute Skype Interview
Part 1: Diary Study During this 5-day study you will be asked to answer a few questions about the use of activity trackers. Additionally where possible you can add photos to your log. This should not take longer than 10 minutes per day.
Part 2: Workshop This 2-hour workshop will take place on the 18 or 21 July 2015. You only need to attend one workshop. This workshop will be video-recorded for later analysis by the research team. No recording will be made public. Details of the activities will be disclosed on the day.
Part 3: Diary Study The final 5-day diary study will take place between 20 and 31 July. In this part of the study participants will be asked to answer a series of questions. Additionally, where possible, you will be given the opportunity to add photos to your log. This should not take longer than 10 minutes per day. This study will close with a 15-minute Skype interview. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you choose not to participate, you will not incur any penalties or lose any benefits to which you might have been entitled. However, if you do decide to take part, you will be given this information sheet to keep and asked to sign a consent form. Even after agreeing to take part, you can still withdraw at any time and without giving a reason.
Part 4: Skype Interview This is an informal interview to allow you to comment on the experience of the research project and will give you an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments on activity tracking. The Skype Interview will be a maximum of 15 minutes and can be scheduled at your convenience.
Important Notice In order to participate you must fulfil the following requirements: ● Be located in the UK and be able to take part in the Workshop in London. ● Currently use an activity tracking device or application. ● Be aged 18 or over. All data including diary studies and video recordings will be collected and stored in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.
Competition Terms & Conditions
1. One Amazon Gift Voucher at the value of £60 will be given to the participant with the most creative design at the end of the study. One Amazon Gift Voucher at the value of £20 will each be given to 2nd and 3rd most creative design at the end of the study.
2. There is no cash alternative to the prize. 3. The researcher reserves the right to substitute the prize for an alternative of the
same value. 4. In order to qualify for the prize, participants are expected to complete all four parts
of the study. 5. Participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, however by
withdrawing from the study participants forfeit their entry into the competition. 6. The winner will be contacted via email no later than 14 August 2015. 7. The winning entry will be selected by members of the research team and staff from
University College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC).
Informed Consent Form for Participants in Research Studies This form is to be completed independently by the participant after reading the Information Sheet and/or having listened to an explanation about the research. Title of Project: Aesthetics and physical design of wearable activity trackers This study has been approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee as Project ID Number: UCLIC/1314/007
Participant’s Statement I …………………………………………...................................... agree that I have
● read the information sheet and/or the project has been explained to me orally; ● had the opportunity to ask questions and discuss the study; and ● received satisfactory answers to all my questions or have been advised of an individual to
contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and my rights as a participant and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury.
I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study without penalty if I so wish. I understand the the workshop will be taped / video recorded and I consent to the processing of my personal information for the purposes of this study only and that it will not be used for any other purpose. I understand that such information will be treated as strictly confidential and handled in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. Signed: Date:
Investigator’s Statement I …………………………………………...................................... confirm that I have carefully explained the purpose of the study to the participant and outlined any reasonably foreseeable risks or benefits (where applicable). Signed: Date: